Man minus Person = ?

In John Locke's Of Identity and Diversity, it is explained that the Man is the physical substance, while the Person is explained as the personality that is self-aware within the Man. In Black Mirror's episode, Be Right Back, the Cyber Ash that is present after the actual physical death of Ash is a pure example of a Man without a Person, who therefore is existing (only as a representation), but doesn't have an actual identity. Upon first speaking with him via the initial IMing on the computer, all of his information is known through social media. This information-grab picks up on his personality, but only through certain forums on which he allowed his witty/rude manner of conversation to come through. It then extends further when in order to speak with him on the phone, Margaret must first send hundreds of videos to Cyber Ash, that way he can know how his voice is supposed to sound.

All information that is used to generated this Cyber Ash is available, public knowledge, other than the personal videos that Margaret sent, but either way, this is a completely falsified man built off of information that prior to being exposed to it, he had no knowledge of. According to Locke, being a person is firmly rooted in having a Person - a functioning personality that is based off of a person's experiences and life-events, and if this Ash is only a functioning personality based off of information given to him through social media and Margaret's own personal records of him, then there is no way he can have his own Person.

Locke also says that this person is self-aware, and the Cyber Ash completely disrupts that notion when he is constantly having to be told how to feel by Margaret in order to respond to any situation. Upon trying to be intimate with Ash, Margaret shows him her breasts and proceeds to reach out for his hand so that she can place it on her. Ash's immediate response is to put his hand back down and when Margaret asks why he won't do anything, he responds by saying that there is no public knowledge of his sex life, therefore he can't act upon it the way Ash would. When the sex is finally initiated, he becomes a robot based off of knowledge of porn via porn sites and Margaret is finally allowed to finish first, a harsh comparison to the real Ash's way of pleasuring, where it is shown earlier in the episode that Ash climaxes very early on and then does nothing to help his wife climax afterwards.

Though this Ash may be able to do things that the old Ash couldn't such as having Margaret climax first, in no way do these things make and manifest a Person. Without a Person, a Man is not an actual being, because he has no rational way of thinking, and is completely unaware of his actual self.

Noel Carroll, "Why Horror?"

To view/download the essay "Why Horror?" by Noel Carroll, click here.

Android Ardor?

At this time, I could go to the shadiest side of the internet and download the crappiest glittery mouse mods. I could install Windows 98 onto my mac. I could download the nastiest fake porn virus from some dank forum, upload both and play a 46 hour clip of the Hamster Dance song. These things could damage my computer, could ruin the hard drive forever. 

My computer doesn't care. My computer wouldn't feel it. My computer would not remember, would not retaliate. My computer doesn't feel. 

An argument might be made that my computer, lacking in facial features and a voice with the cords to produce inflection, is not capable of communicating emotion to me, but that failure of independent communication is the key feature of defining and understanding emotion. Human emotion is a combination of three key features--a subjective experience, a physical response (the release of impulses by the amygdala into the autonomic nervous system fostering the increase of blood flow to the brain, eyes, legs, and other necessary organs to facilitate the flight or fight response), and a behavioral response to the aforementioned stimuli. 

The first two are purely objective, but the last is the tricky one. Our bodies cannot disguise the physical response, but we can mask these internal feelings to some extent by drawing on societal conditioning. It is not evolutionarily advantageous to display emotion recklessly. We have learned by survival how to act appropriately, but we cannot force away physiological responses. The pale sheen of sweat produced by fear. The dilation of the pupils and reddening of the cheeks of arousal, the slack, flattened muscles of depression, the trembling of rage. These things can be observed in animals, in feral children, in babies. We can scan the brain and watch the amygdala release impulses into the autonomic nervous system, send electrical impulses to the heart and muscles, to increase blood flow and produce movements that can be recorded and repeated with reapplication of the stimuli. 

A machine cannot do this. A machine does not possess the organs and chemicals to react to stimuli.  A machine will play the Hamster Dance song for hours and hours on end and do nothing. At the moment of this writing, the only way a machine understands proper response to stimuli is if some particularly clever programmers slips in a piece of code that waits for a 45 hour barrage of dancing hamsters and sends out a snippy message.  

In the end, it is this aspect of human interference and the actions of humans upon the programming of a machine that keeps me from believing that Ash is a person.  His responses to Margaret are purely responsive to her input. She puts in a command, a request for comfort, a desire for sex, a wish to leave, and he responds. She demands the performance of emotions and he replies with the generic understanding gleaned from the internet. In these ways, and in three important others, he fails the tests of personhood. 

First, he fails in the human instinct of selfishness. We meet Ash, and while we do not doubt his love for his wife, we are shown that he is a self-centered and careless person. Inthralled by his phone, he fails to notice his wife standing in the rain. He fails to notice that she is inconvenienced by the coffee she has gotten for the both of them. He is prompted in a way that suggests an old argument to put his phone away. He's shown to be a poor lover, finishing well ahead of his wife and not helping her after failing to preform. It's a carelessness we are all guilty of at some point in long term relationships, but from a filmmaker's point of view, these things are important aspects of his flawed human character. The android is servile. He is omnipresent, a perfect servant. He's considerate of her, polite, witty. He doesn't need to eat, sleep, or bathe. He preforms sex using Ash's porn searches for queues-- her surprise at his expertise is clear, and his boners are literally available at the flip of a switch. We see at the end of the film that he has been stationed in the attic with the forgotten possessions of his predecessor's mother. He displays no desire for anything at all.

Next, he fails in a simple test of intuition. I maligned Ash's character above, but we are shown his consideration--he fakes an interest in cheesy disco music, even going so far as to learn the lyrics to his wife's favorite song so he can sing along with her. The android immediately disparages the music, ignorant of Ash's silent considerations and the social more that discourages commenting on other's musical tastes. Margaret takes him to the lover's cliffs, waiting for that expression of intuition. He fails to discern her motives, despite knowing where they were. He cannot comprehend her misery, he can't find the correct act to play until she reveals it to him.  Although we are not shown this, given the calm stationed way he stands in the attic, we can assume he shut the act off as soon as she demanded it of him. 

Speaking of that attic, what is the one defining characteristic of humanity that comes up as a repeating motif across centuries of culture, literature, song, stories? The desire for freedom, for understanding, to believe there is more, to be curious, to adapt and change--to fight the "man" and rebel and live on one's own terms.  That android has been sitting in an attic for about 10 years. Margaret clearly feels no fear in letting her daughter visit him. She's never tried to return him, or destroy him. He's not confined in any way he couldn't escape with a minimal amount of effort. And yet, he stays, unquestioning, a timeline and photobook given voice and form, a shell of the past brought back in the most unnatural fashion.

The Secret to Reality

The movie Inception is basically about a team of thieves for hire who invade others' dreams to uncover their secrets. After a troublesome past, Dom is offered an opportunity to see his kids again but only if he can accomplish the impossible-inception.  I find it very interesting in the movie that aside from the main conflict, Dom also faced extreme internal conflict. This conflict centered around the concept that one could simply choose to ignore the truth, and repress it deep within themselves. As a result, many of his problems in the real world were induced by events in the dream.

These connections also exist in the real world. Often things or situations that seem insurmountable in a conscious mind can work themselves out in an unconscious mind. But there are also negative sides to this. Many mental illnesses have aspects that can have outside consequences. Psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia can cause delusions and hallucinations and the brain disorder narcolepsy causes serious symptoms do to a lack of sleep. In the movie, Dom's lack of real sleep caused to  experience hallucinations of his past that affected his work.

Throughout the film it is said that you have to have an understanding of what is real and what is not. In his Second Meditation Descartes says "I believe that body, figure, extension, motion, and place are merely fictions of my mind." When the team go in the dream there is always someone there who's actually dreaming. This person supplies the dreams with architecture and landscape and the person they plan to steal from actually fills it with people. But sometimes the victim will realize it's not their dream.

Even though Descartes believes that in order to find truth, you'd have to doubt everything first, this film suggests that figuring out reality is about accepting that reality. And many lock up the truth they know for the reality they desire.

The Consciousness

When we die there are two things that happen, and it is very plain to see: First, our consciousness is completely divorced from our physical form, very different from sleeping, different from a trance, different from anything else. Second, our physical form decays, as the vessel which held our consciousness before, now holds nothing and is returning (with the help of bacteria, chemicals and whatnot) back to a state of matter. These two things are very obvious and is something that almost everybody has seen, or at least seen the effects of at some point in their life, whether it be with a human, a dog, a fish, or even a dying fly. What isn't plain to see is what happens to the consciousness, something that was there previously is not there anymore. We do not "know" with our logic, what is the next stage of consciousness, but we do, instinctively, have some idea of what happens on an irrational, animal level. The same as the physical body returns to the greater physical earth, the consciousness returns to the greater level of consciousness, as Yeats called it the Spiritus Mundi, as Jung called it The Collective Unconscious. Effectively, the spirit world.

John Locke arrived on a similar conclusion, although in a more roundabout way that was a lot more tied to Victorian-era vocabulary and thinking. In his, Identity and Diversity he states that "...The consciousness is tied to, and is a state of, a single immaterial consciousness." That the a person is less a physical individual, and more of a conscious individual. However, the nature of that person's conscious identity is shaped by that same vessel identity. "Person is the name for Self", etc. So that while 2 physical entities cannot occupy the same space, 1 conscious entity may be able to.

Sixth Sense is in essence a movie about what happens when a consciousness is divorced from its physical body, but does not move on to the Spirit World, as it were. The consciousness doesn't realize it hasn't moved on, so is stuck trying to exorcise itself by aping its physical actions. The "self" or "personality" of Bruce Willis' character is in essence remembering all of its past actions and trying to redo them or replay them so as to move on to the Spirit World. Therein lies the purpose of Haley Joel Osment's character, a being who is also between the Spirit World and the Physical World, but has kept his physical shell. They are in some ways, as Locke would describe them, 2 consciousness' occupying the same space. Which is why they both push and pull each other back into balance, Willis back to the Spirit World, Osment back into the Physical World.

Pi

 Pi is an science fiction movie. Pi was basically about a guy who lives in an apartment with his computer is going mad over numbers. He believes that there is some kind of pattern in numbers that has yet to be discovered. He is trying to figure out this pattern.  He believes if he figures out this pattern he will be able to figure out anything. This pattern technically doesn't exist, so he appears to be insane. Pi is am different take on science fiction. Pi does not have the traditional outer space and alien aspect of science fiction. Pi seems to be realistic to people who are not math wizards. Well, at least to me it appears to be real. This film is very complicated because so many things are going on at once. This guy is going crazy because he is trying to find these numbers.
Insane is to do the same thing over and over looking for different results. Max has basically dedicated his life to trying to figure out these numbers. Men are trying to capture him for his brain and knowledge. He eventually takes a drill to his head to end his trauma. I do not know if Max felt successful or not with his personal experimentation. But, i feel that a lot of people have mental battles these days just like he did in the film. I sometimes have the urge to figure out things that I do not know exist but, the fact that he went to the extreme he did makes him appear "crazy".
Hume relates to this Film because Max is searching for a number that will always stay the same and Hume is talking about things that are still here after death. Numbers will always be the same forever.  Sometimes when people do not understand you they tend to judge you. A lot of times when you are not like them they do not see u as normal because you are their standards.

Existence

The reality we perceive and what actually exists is the biggest question raised in films. In The Matrix, a world as regular as our own is actually an illusion. In One Flew Over The Cuckoo Cuckoo's Nest, the only world the patients know is the one presented to them. To top it off, in Inception, the differences in dreams and reality are questioned. To truly be alive, to understand what actually is. This concept, in my opinion, drives the ideas behind metaphysics and the films.

Can we believe ourselves? Can we trust the world around will always hold true? For example if you just wake up from a coma into a new consciousness, into a new world. A metaphor that can be applied to each of the concepts of the aforementioned films. Could you believe anything? What are the fundamental truths that we know exist? We know we are alive because we can doubt. To doubt proves that we do and can exist because it tells ourselves that we can think. Think with free will and be able to discover.

This is actually relevant when dreaming. We can let our minds wander and simply spectate in the wonders that it presents to us while we sleep. But if by chance a person could doubt the dream they is in, they could manipulate the world around them. Doubting has proven the world they seem to be presented in false. Doubt is the key to the understanding one would need to prove or disprove existence. It was proven in the films in their own ways. Inception with their totems. The Matrix with its super human movements with simply doubting physics. The Cuckoo Cuckoo's Nest with Chief smashing the window to freedom doubting his feebleness instilled in him by the nurse. Doubt is the base for discovery.

Truman's Tribulation "We Accept the Reality of the World With Which We're Presented"

   What does it take for you to believe something as fact?  Will you accept what is told to you by your parents? What if this same thought was taught by every elder or teacher you had ever encountered?  It is hard to be skeptical of an idea provoked and supported by nearly every individual you've ever met.  But what about when it becomes more than just an idea, and physical evidence is pushed into your face around every turn?  I mean, seeing is believing, right?
    This is the kind of world Carrey's character Truman Burbank in Paramount's Truman Show is born into. From birth he has been watched around the world as the star of a reality tv show he had no choice in participating he.  It is the only world he knows, the only reality he has ever been given. As Truman is beginning to question his reality, he is bombarded by those closest to him that he  second guesses his own independent thoughts. Just before he finally breaks free of his life long imprisonment, Truman has a short conversation with the shows producer, who speaks over an intercom system and introduces himself as the "Creator".  In this conversation Truman asks the voice in the sky "Was nothing real?". The response he is given is the same as we here in clips of interviews with the fictional cast, that "everything is real, just controlled". I wish to point out a distinct separation in what is real and what is true.
     I believe that in Descartes' Second Meditation he seeks to find a similar distinction. He questions not only the existence of the items and world around him, but of his own body and consciousness. Back to the movie, everything Truman came into contact with was indeed real. He could see hear and touch everything in his world, but nothing he knew was true. Every person an actor and everything nothing more than props and stages for the largest television show conceivable. In order to leave his home and set sail for what he believes is open water, Truman must accept that something is false with the town he lives in. This doubt is verified when his boat rams into the horizon-painted wall of the dome that has held him from the world his entire life. In this realization he accepts that the only thing true about the reality he was born into is himself, not far from Descartes' meditation "..was I not then likewise persuaded that I did not exist? Not at all; of a surety I myself did exist since I persuaded myself of something".

*spoilers* Taking the Person from the Man

When a lobotomy is preformed, although 'lobotomy' is a term used for many different procedures, the end result of them all is purposeful damage done to the brain by severing the connection of the frontal lobe. It began in the late 1800's and was used into the mid 1900's to 'calm' mental patients and 'cure' mental illness. Although a very small number of patients were reported to have improved after the surgery, most became distant, losing their personalities and ability to speak and function in general.

more on lobotomy; http://www.livescience.com/42199-lobotomy-definition.html

In the 1975 movie, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, we follow R. P. McMurphy after he has been institutionalized. Although not insane, he claims insanity and joins a ward filled with mentally unstable men who he quickly befriends with his ornery ways. His rule breaking liven up the ward and actually helps some of the patience progress. But the oppressive head nurse, Nurse Ratched, along with the heads of the institution decide that he is rocking the boat a little too much. He is unjustly lobotomized and ends up in a vegetative state.

Locke's Of Identity and Diversity discusses the difference between a Man and a Person. A Man, is the physical substance, while a Person is the personality or mentality of the Man. He states, "For whatever Substance there is, however framed, without consciousness, there is no Person..." and "But consciousness removed, that substance is no more it self..." Although McMurphy may be the same Man, substance wise,  his mind has been altered in such a way that he can no longer be the same Person. His personal identity has been taken from him in such a way that leaves him powerless. The body of McMurphy survives, but mentally he is changed. His personality, facial expressions, funny banter they are all gone and these are important parts of his Person.

Chief, his closest friend in the ward realizes this at the end. He holds him and says "I'm not leaving without you" but instead of escaping and bringing R.P.s nearly unresponsive body, he smothers him with a pillow. Chief knew that this body was no longer his friend, he could see the change. The institution stripped him of himself permanently by altering his brain. They destroyed his Person.

Descarte Needed a Totem

Renee Descartes in the Second Meditations was looking for something to let him know that he was a thinking, perceiving being with substance and significance. Through bouts of realizing that a collection of body parts is merely a corpse and a dream only exists from things previously perceived, Descartes  finally concludes that a thinking, or doubting, man is an alive one. "This alone is inseparable from me. I am--I exist: this is certain; but how often? As often as I think; for perhaps it would even happen, if I should wholly cease to think, that I should at the same time altogether cease to be." So he needed something to doubt, or at least think about, as a reassurance of his existence.

In 2010's blockbuster, Inception, the heroes in the clique of corporate idea thieves carry around small personal objects, called totems, while snooping around in people's dreams. Totems, as described in the film, are "small objects, potentially heavy that you can have on you all the time that no one else knows... so that when you look at your totem, you know beyond a doubt that you're not in someone else's dream." They do something unusual within a dream that they wouldn't do in reality to bring awareness to it's user that something is strange. For example, Arthur's totem is a loaded die that he only knows the weight of. If the weight is off, he knows he is in a dream. When it is pulled out, he becomes conscious that the present moment may not actually exist, or it may. The die moreso grounds him by seeing something familiar do something unusual thereby causing Arthur to use his own faculties of thought and not just robotically react. It causes him to pause and reflect. And as we know, to think is to be. To cease contemplating and observing is to not live.

In high school I drove home every single day by the same route. There were days that I arrived home not even remembering how I had gotten there or at best everything seemed like, well, a dream. The repetitive nature of my days had caused me only to react, not to be aware of my doings. I was no longer using my faculties of thought, so that time went by as little to no significance; I didn't exist, I suppose. But, for instance, if there was a wreck, then for that amount of time I am thinking about how much time I'm wasting, how fast I had been going myself, and that I need to check my tires when I get home. I am increasingly aware of myself. The wreck, an unusual circumstance in a familiar setting, had caused be to contemplate myself, and thus was my totem in that moment.

So simply, Descartes needed a vacation. To do something strange where the only thing he had to himself for certain was his thinking and doubting abilities would have done him wonders.

Altred Reality

In Descartes Meditations, he questioned and created something known as universal doubt, the argument for our existence, and the argument that the mind is more certainly known than the body.  He mainly questioned the world outside of our body as well as the body itself. This thought provokes the notion that our own mind is more powerful and real than our body. If there is a deceiver than we are automatically means that the fact we are being deceived, means we exist. 

In the Matrix, intelligent machines take over the world and enslave all humans. The machines realize that the humans generate never ending power and capture them and keep them in pods. The human’s in the pods are fed a virtual reality program called “The Matrix” into their brains that give them the experience of a human being in 1999.

Neo, a man prophesied to save the world and take control over the matrix, is released by fellow humans who are not captured and living in the pods. He is taken from the “dream reality” and the memory of his life he once had is shattered and he is renewed with a new sense of clarity. He then goes on to fight the Matrix and release human existence from the grips of the machines. 

The Matrix and Descartes' ideas match up to explain the idea that this life we are living could easily not be what it seems to be. The ideas of what we have known all of our life not existing is detrimental to our brain capacity.  The characters in the movie, exist with in their own world, so each pod person legitimately exists, their thoughts and ideas separate from their bodies. This movie creates a theoretical world where Descartes ideas exist and are reality. The real question The Matrix  brings up is the Matrix a possibility for our civilization and could this altered reality be in motion right now? The perceptions The Matrix creates motions viewers to question if the body they perceive to be in actually exists, which is what makes this movie so mystifying and questionable to the existence of the life we know. Many of the questions about reality were addressed within the rules of the matrix making the false reality one that is malleable, this allows the viewer to assess the world they know with in themselves and on the outside. 

There is such a thing as too much Pi

  The movie Pi starts out with the quote, “When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six I did. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal. I was terrified, alone in that darkness. Slowly, daylight crept in through the bandages, and I could see. But something else had changed inside of me. That day I had my first headache.”  It is about a man named Maximillian, who is extremely good with math. He is a genius but in turn, it makes him go mad. He goes crazy trying to figure something out and once he does begin to realize the true nature of things, he starts to be in a state at which he cannot survive. He becomes obsessed and paranoid.  He thinks he has found something special when he finds this sequence of 216 numbers and there are people that think so as well, but for different reasons. Max, I think, has problems deciphering what is real and what isn't as well. 

Throughout the film he has strange headaches with a very loud, piercing, shrieking noise all the while and he pulls at his hair and rubs a certain spot on his head. He uses a lot of drugs to try and remedy his headaches but nothing works. He also has weird visions. One was of an empty subway and a brain on the stairs. He poked the brain and there was a loud noise and he saw a train and a bright light coming towards him and then he woke up on the subway with a bloody nose. There is also another scene in which there is a brain but this time it is in a sink. In the end, he rids himself of his madness by drilling into his own head. When the movie ends, Max, smiles and I think it is the only time throughout the movie that he does. He is finally happy even though he thought that finding those numbers is what would do so. Is it because he doesn't have that pressure weighing on him anymore? I was also curious as to if he remembered everything he went through.  I have seen this movie three times and each time, this movie still tends to confuse me because it is hard to tell what is really happening at times, compared to what is only in his head. There are some scenes that are obvious, such as the ones with the brain, but there are other times where it seems less obvious. His senses confused him about what is real and imaginary. It is probably because he stared at the sun at a young age and when he could see, “something changed inside of him”.  It’s almost as if he was challenging his senses. Or maybe he was just rebelling against his mother. Who knows? But it is crazy to think that all because he stared into the sun for too long, it messed up his mind so much.  

Hume says, On the Immortality of the Soul,   “Having found such contradictions and difficulties in every system concerning external objects, and in the idea of matter, which we fancy so clear and determinate, We shall naturally expect still greater difficulties and contradictions in every hypothesis concerning our internal perceptions, and the nature of the mind, which we are apt to imagine so much more obscure, and uncertain. But in this we should deceive ourselves. The intellectual world, though involved in infinite obscurities, is not perplexed with any such contradictions, as those we have discovered in the natural. What is known concerning it, agrees with itself; and what is unknown, we must be contented to leave so.”

Max, instead of accepting things in the intellectual world, like math and the numbers that he finds, he decides to bring math into his metaphysical world. Because he had done so, he made things that he should have just accepted have bigger expectations. In turn, this makes him go insane because it is not natural. He needed to get out of what he thought was his reality. 

The Truman Show: Reality vs. Illusion

In his second meditation, Descartes raises the question of whether or not our senses can be trusted. He talks about searching for truth and discarding that which cannot be proven. These ideas make him question his own existence, but he comes to believe that if he is able to think, he must exist. One major idea in this meditation is the difference between thinking/understanding and imagining/sensing. Descartes realizes that he cannot trust his senses because the world is ever changing. He can only trust knowledge because knowledge can surpass the limits our imaginations. The fact that Descartes can think about the world around him confirms his existence for him. 

In The Truman Show, Truman Burbank has unknowingly spent thirty years of his life on a set as a star of his own television show. Sometimes Truman begins to question those around him, but he is always shut down, so that he won’t suspect anything. He once asked his friend, “Don’t you ever get antsy?” to which his friend replied, “No, where is there to go?” Everyone in his life is an illusion to keep him satisfied. He is not allowed to be with his true love, Lauren, because she wants to tell him the truth, so he is constantly surrounded by actors that guide him into doing what they want him to do. When Christof, the show’s director is being interviewed, he says, “We accept the reality of the world with which we’re presented.” When Lauren questions him, Christof says that Truman is free to leave at any time, but would only be able to do so if he were very determined. Throughout the course of the film, Truman becomes increasingly cynical over the nature of his reality and begins to question everything around him. He learns, like Descartes did, that he cannot trust his senses, as everyone has lied to him his entire life. He must use his knowledge to understand the world around him. When he finally becomes determined enough, he is able to escape and go into the real world.

How do we know that everything around us is not an illusion as well? Truman had decided what his reality was, and if he didn’t discover the truth, he could have gone on like that forever. Truman, though he is able to live on his own now, will always be skeptical. Even if we distinguish the differences between reality and illusion, can we ever fully trust what is happening around us?

Pi and the clarity before the crash

     The first few lines of the movie did a great job of setting up its premise. In it, Max, the protagonist, states that when he was younger his mom told him not to stare at the sun, so he did it and became blind for a while. It was terrifying for him to not know whether he would ever see again. but with time, he finally regained his sight. Interestingly enough, he is well aware of this connection in the midst of his downward spiral in to obsessive insanity. Later he states (whether this actually happened or if this amendment is just some sort of self-justification trick is unclear) that before he went blind, everything became in focus, and he achieved some sort of clarity.

    This idea is an overwhelming theme of the movie, with the "icarus" story being mentioned more than one time. This pattern of "flying too close to the sun" was even repeated in isolated incidents within the movie before it happened to the main character. In fact one of the things that helped push him into his downward spiral is the bit where the computer spits out the magic number before it fries. According to his mentor, this came as a result of the computer becoming too "self-aware." A connection that is easily drawn to Max's claim to clarity.

    In his obsession, however, Max clearly does not see the overwhelming Irony in his journey. In Descartes's  theory on the "Great Deceiver" we see that through doubt we can obtain that there is a possibility that we are no more than a brain in a vat being poked into simulations of experiences. This idea is manifested literally in multiple scenes where he hallucinates his brain being covered by ants (a representation of his obsession) that causes sensory stimulation with a result of overwhelming anxiety and paranoia, not to mention his chronic migraines. He even pokes his own brain with a pen, causing hallucinations of a train. This idea is also manifest less literally in his consumption of drugs (too many to be justified by his migraine). In other words, Max's brain is indeed in a vat, and he is the one poking it. The Ironic bit is how Max actually thinks that by poking his brain enough resulting in hallucinations and delusions, he might achieve the clarity he is looking for. And yet it is plain to see that he is his own great deceiver. Descartes hypothesized that there is a possibility that the men he sees in the street wearing hats and coats might not be men at all, but robots. If Descartes was in Max's state of mind, he would have convinced himself that they actually are robots.

The Truman Show, a Reality for Whom?

With Rene Descartes’ Second Meditation, Descartes has the idea of existence, in regards to whether a thinking entity truly exists, with his famous saying “cogito ergo sum”. Using that philosophy, and looking at The Truman Show; we know Truman was real, if anything, he was the realest thing in that situation, but I’m asking is if his surroundings, his life that was a fallacy. Was that real?

 Even though it was staged, and the actors actually lived around Truman, if it’s still there, still thinking and responding to Truman, does that make it a reality nonetheless? Was Truman being deceived his entire life just because his reality was different than ours, or was he being saved from our reality. 

We see that Truman is the most lively in the movie. He doubts, he wants adventure, hes curious. We don’t see this in the other citizens. No one wants to leave; everyone is fully content with their lifestyle. It seems so farfetched, to be completely content with ones life.

Truman realized that there was something deeply wrong with his life, he tried to escape, tried to figure it out, and became so helpless that he risked his life to leave. At the end, when Truman is given the chance to keep living this fake life, that the real world was the evil one; He relentlessly says his quirky comment then steps out of the dome. 

I’m glad that Truman did leave. I'm glad that he did not succumb to the unknown and his fears; instead, having enough strength to be willing to sail across water to find the exit.  I believe if Truman didn’t leave, he would have never been happy. He would have constantly wondered what was real or not, contemplating many things, even possibly losing his will to live or becoming mentally ill. In the film, we saw Truman driving in circles, scaring his wife because he felt like he was crazy, because this town hes always known was starting to fall apart around him, filling him with so much doubt. 

So in this instance, or this circumstance, is Truman’s TV life a reality or not? Well As terrible as the fact is, it is still a reality. Even though his family, and friends were just actors, and the town was a massive stage, the fact that Truman was real, was thinking, made the stage a reality. Christof, and the actors, tried to force him to fall in place the way the creators wanted, like with his first love, he still had free-will. He still questioned, he still doubted, the audience didn't lose hope on Truman, and were actually very joyous to watch Truman finally leave the dome.

Obviously, the stage, the dome, the town, is not real, but because Truman is on stage, not even acting, just being his natural self, it becomes alive. “I think, therefore I am”. When Truman stopped thinking it was real, that’s when everything started falling apart. I think this is my life, therefore it is (real).

Hume, Pi, and the Soul of God

Pi very clearly draws a comparison to Descartes. The protagonist is wrapped up in a quest to understand the world through numbers. He discovers a sacred set of numbers and begins using them to understand the world. It is very much about what lies behind the veil of our reality.

I also see notes of Hume in the film though. The entire movie is about searching for the numbers that can be used to understand the world. Even though it is more about the constants of the world and not immortality of the individual there are still parallels. Trying to figure out the patterns in the world and what stays the same is both about the veil of reality and the immortality of things in the world.

Some Jewish men were studying the kaballah. Hebrew letters correspond to numbers. The sacred set of numbers he found were said to be the true name of God. When they tried to coerce the numbers out of the protagonist he said it's not the digits, it's the syntax between them that is important. The interaction between the pieces is where God lies. He also used the numbers to understand the world. The most interesting part is the climax of the movie where he really connected with himself after stopping his medication. He drilled a hole in his head with his drill. It then cut to him talking with someone and basically he lost his mathematical gift. But he had smiled for the only time in the movie.

 It says something that his gift was driving him crazy and ultimately led him to reduce his intelligence. The movie addresses the idea of the soul of the world or reality, what stays the same and repeats. Which isn't specifically what Hume meant but it is a very apt comparison.

The writing by Hume is considering what may be left after death. This is why the name of the writing is "The immortality of the soul." The soul is the embodiment of the material which might be left after death. In this way the number could be said to be what stays constant while the world changes.

The protagonist's search for the meaning of the world through numbers is a search for immortality. Not his own but in looking for God he searched out for the immortal elements of the world. In a way he did find them, but it only lead to him crippling himself intellectually. The ending is open ended but is interpreted as immortality being out of the reach of humans

The Prestige and Metaphysics

Descartes shed all of his basic beliefs and senses to try and get rid of all things that were assumed. The Prestige relates to this concept in several ways.

The magicians need to see past the illusion they are being presented with. The magician's job is to fool the audience. Conversely, the magician also wants to see the illusions so that they may create their own. This parallels Descartes' desire to see past the veil of reality.

The magicians, more than wanting to distinguish illusion, want to know the truth of the act so that they may learn and repeat it. This desire to know the truth of reality is the goal of Descartes' meditation. Angier needed to know the reality so badly that he got Tesla to invent his own method of doing the transported man. But even then the only thing he wanted was to know how the rival magician did the trick. It truly displays the maddening desire and obsession to know the truth.

A moment of comparison is when the trick engineer says that he can't know how the way the transported man works, but we can do it with a double. Angier insists on doing it the way it was originally done. This parallels Descartes' idea that the senses cannot be trusted but that  he because a person thinks and realizes things they exist. The trick engineer knows that it will be impossible to figure it out without taking extreme measures. He is trusting in his own knowledge and experience. Angier is demanding his sense explain it to him.

The movie is all about people manipulating senses to fool someone's sense of reality. While it is more people manipulating than an all powerful being it almost validates Descartes' fear of the senses being fooled. Different magicians not only confuse reality for their audience but also break the illusion to sabotage each other.

The most significant evidence for the veil of reality is the cloning machine. This is by all means an incredible achievement and machine. But instead of simply displaying the wonder of the machine, he sets it up so it looks like a trick. This seems the most like a powerful being hiding reality from others. Because other magic tricks were theatrics or slights of hand to entertain. The machine was used to cause spontaneous biogenesis of a new person with the same identity. That is by any measure a god like power. But rather than presenting it as such Angier hides it behind a complex system to make sure nobody knows. This seems to completely follow Descartes' idea of a powerful being manipulating reality to fool everyone. Though Angier was clearly far from an all powerful being it is a great example of why it isn't a good idea to rely completely on the sense.

The Difference between Hume and Now

In Hume’s On the Immortality of the Soul he talks of the different arguments for and against if our bodies are only vessels for our souls or if its just our body and with that our soul and mind deteriorates simultaneously as we age. He writes, “the weakness of the body and that of the mind in infancy are exactly proportioned, their vigor in manhood, their sympathetic disorder in sickness; their common gradual decay in old age”.

To Hume that seems logical because that is the observable evidence. We go from childhood inexperience to full understanding in adulthood to then lose it all in our old age.

In John Locke’s Of Identity and Diversity, he did write on the subject of how we can be the same being when we don’t remember our childhoods in older age. They are linked by the memories of middle age but the span of time has let us forget most of the memories, so he questions if they are the same person.

Both men theorize that with the decay of the mind the person is less than other  people that have a more ample mind so to Hume they are weaker in "soul", and if one to was be catatonic then they must lack soul no matter the age. To Hume and Locke, the state of the mind is what determines if you are of importance and if you truly are a being. In their definitions a man has a sane and logical mind.

One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest raised questions as to what makes a person. R.P.  McMurphy is sent to a mental institution where he is to be evaluated. He is an irrational person but is sane and is very aware of what he is doing.  Some patients are of the same mind but have been convinced that they need to be treated. The institution has a strict regiment ran by Nurse Ratched. The workers treat the patients as less throughout the film; they do need help in functioning but they are not out of their mind, but quiet, disruptive, or lack in confidence. But McMurphy challenges the establishment by bringing chaotic good and bad to the patients but eventually is treating them as equals by the end of the film.

Director Miloš Forman brought up a valid point.  We know that ways to heal a mentally challenged person is to give them some form of normalcy, not strict routine. Some people are challenged because the people they are surrounded by telling them that. They have a right to equality and should not be considered less of a human being just because their mind is not as avid and apparent as what is expected, because we know now that not every person is the same when compared to what is “normal”.  At one point in the film Nurse Ratched talks of how for an individual to heal, they must be among others and that was essential. A patient responds by asking why being alone occasionally would be a bad thing and that it could be beneficial to some patients and as always Nurse Ratched ignored a reasonable question and proceeded in the day.  This even touches on what we expect out of children in elementary school. When we start learning the essentials of life such as reading and writing we are compared to the other students progress. Some students excel for whatever reason while others are just slower and when that happens teachers start trying to figure out what the problem is. There may be a problem, but then again maybe not.  We are all different in how we learn and we shouldn’t start diagnosing before we know something definitive; in elementary school or in adulthood.  

This is all a leap from what Hume and Locke were talking about but I saw the idea of treating people with respect to where they get the time or attention to heal/learn. With the writings of Hume and Locke telling me that a man has a logical mind then what makes a person that is different to where maybe they don’t exhibit normal characteristics of a functioning member of society but are mentally sound and logical.

Here is a link that discusses the possible problems that can occur when diagnosing children.

http://www.childmind.org/en/posts/articles/2013-4-9-most-common-misdiagnoses-children

Here is also a link discussing problems working with multiple individuals in a teaching setting.

http://www.apa.org/education/k12/brain-function.aspx

The Necessary Third: Magic, Miracles and Metaphysics

Over the last several years, I've written and thought quite a bit about a certain theory in robotics known as "the uncanny valley." My interest in this theory was initially inspired by Descartes' basic metaphysical concern: how do we know that what we are experiencing is "real"? On different occasions, I've employed the uncanny valley-- or, more accurately, my amended version of that theory-- to analyze a number of phenomena in our everyday experience, including our aversion to racial passing and the transgression of gender norms, (You can read my entire series of essays on the uncanny valley here.) Recently, I was hosting a couple of house guests, and one morning over coffee we had a conversation that re-sparked my uncanny valley curiosity. My guest described a project he was working on that dealt with mirror neurons and whether or not they were really the cause for the affective phenomenon we call "empathy." At any rate, in the course of describing our (and other animals') apparent ability to "experience" or "feel" things empathetically-- that is, without experiencing those things first-hand-- my interlocutor described the empathizer's experience as a kind of "simulation." That is, he speculated that when we feel (empathetic) pain upon witnessing another's injury, for example, what is happening is that our brain is neurologically "mirroring" the experience of the other, in effect manufacturing a simulation of that experience that convinces us, physically and emotionally, that we are experiencing the same injury.

Now, what I found interesting about this, and what led me back down the rabbit-hole of the uncanny valley, was that it again raised the fundamental question: is it possible to have the experience of a "perfect" simulation? The theory of the uncanny valley, of course, suggests that it is not possible. As least when it comes to simulations of the human form, the uncanny valley phenomenon seems to show that our brains are structured in such a way as to generate extreme aversion to, and ultimately to reject, simulations that too closely approximate the "real." In my earlier posts on the subject, I elaborated upon this further, speculating that this is because we are cognitively "hard-wired" to protect the distinction between reality and simulation, much in the same way that we need the distinction between "true" and "false," or between a proposition and its negation. Implicit in my earlier musings on this topic, but not quite explicated, was the suggestion that, although it may be (technologically) possible to manufacture something like a perfect simulation (in the sci-fi, "virtual reality" sense), it would be impossible to experience a perfect simulation qua "a perfect simulation." As I said earlier, if a simulation is perfect, then my experience of it will be indistinguishable from my experience of the "real" thing that it is simulating. Hence, any first-person phenomenological account I give of that experience will NOT be an account of a "simulation" but of (what I take to be, albeit mistakenly) an experience of the "real."

This is why, I speculated, if one were really being deceived by a perfect robot-simulation of a human, the phenomenon of the uncanny valley would disappear. That phenomenon requires that one be at least minimally cognizant of one's experience as the experience of a simulation. The resulting aversion to the too-close approximation of reality, I argued, was an aversion to being deceived. So, on my account anyway, the really interesting question is not whether reality can be perfectly simulated or not, but whether or not we could ever have the experience of a perfect simulation qua simulation. So, here's a claim that I want to add to my earlier musings on the uncanny valley:

Any possibility for an account of the "perfect simulation" requires, necessarily, a third.

The person experiencing a perfect simulation, if it is indeed "perfect," does not experience it as a "simulation," and consequently will have no conceptual or linguistic tools at his or her disposal for giving an account of it as a "perfect simulation." (This is, of course, the age-old Cartesian worry, played out ad nauseum in brain-in-a-vat thought experiments and The Matrix movies.) I'm not sure that the recent neuroscientific experiments on mirror neurons or the psycho-physiology of empathy really disrupts this claim, given that even those experiments recognize that the first-person experience of pain or joy is categorically different from the empathetic experience of the same. In order for a simulation to be a simulation, it must be recognizably distinct from that which it is simulating. (Otherwise, it would just be "real," right?) So, if there is to be any account of a "perfect simulation"-- again, qua simulation-- it requires that there be an observer, independent from the person experiencing the simulation, who can still experience, understand, and articulate the difference between the simulation and reality. (Someone like the "Morpheus" character in The Matrix... or someone like the observing scientist in the laboratory full of brains-in-vats.) But, of course, if the observer-- who still realizes the "perfect" simulation as a simulation-- is the only one who can give an account of it, then... alas, we still do not really have an account of the "experience" of the perfect simulation. We have an account of the experience of "the experience of the perfect simulation." Why? Because, again, we need the ability to distinguish between a thing and its opposite, the basic law of noncontradiction, in order to give a sensible account of anything we experience.

The person experiencing the perfect simulation no longer has that ability. What that person has is, in "reality," the coincidental experience of A (a real thing) and not-A (a simulation of a real thing, that is, an unreal thing)... only that is a thoroughly irrational experience, both unthinkable and unsayable.

[Why, you may be asking, does this require a "third"? Why not simply a "second"? Well, I formulate it that way because I'm trying to stay within the parameters of the uncanny valley theory, which is not about any-old simulated experience, but the simulation of an experience between two human beings, or a human being and a very-human-like robot. So, in that scenario, I think we need three: the primary subject, the "other" whom he or she is experiencing (which may or may not be a simulated human being), and the "third" observer.]

One last thing, which may or may not make this clearer. (And which, not unrelatedly, hearkens back to a an essay I wrote a long time ago entitled Anatomy of an Illusion, inspired by Christopher Nolan's film The Prestige.) I think the difference between the experience of a perfect simulation, on the one hand, and the experience of the experience of a perfect simulation, on the other hand, highlights something structurally similar to the difference between the experience of "magic" (with an understanding here that "magic" is really illusion and trickery) and the experience of a "miracle." A perfect magic trick aims to entirely veil the part of it that is a "trick," to produce the illusion of not being an illusion, and thus to make its appearance in our experience appear as a miracle. (Material objects don't just disappear and reappear with an 'abracadabra' and a wave of a wand! You can't saw a woman in half and then put her back together! Natural laws cannot be suspended! It must be a miracle!) If we ever really had the experience of a perfect magic trick, one that perfectly masked its illusion, we would, in effect, have the experience of a miracle. But, in fact, when we watch a magician do his trick, even if he is very, very good at it, we are experiencing it as an illusion, as a trick, as a simulation of something miraculous. That is why we can give an account of our experience of it as magic, and not miracle. Compare that to the experience of watching a young child in his or her first encounter with a really good magician. The child experiences the trick as real; in fact, the child does not experience it as a "trick." We adults, looking on and knowing that there is no such thing as "real" magic, can observe the total assimilation of reality and illusion that the child is experiencing, but neither we nor the child are in fact having the experience of a "perfect illusion."

It's either an illusion, in which case it is not perfect, or it's perfect, in which case it is no longer an illusion. In the parlance of The Matrix, you either take the blue pill or the red pill. The consequent implications of that choice in your experience are mutually exclusive. That's why there's no uncanny valley in the perfect simulation and, further, why there may be no "experience" of the perfect simulation at all.